Man Citeh XIV 2 v Aston Villa 0 Post Match Thread.

[ktvillan]

Reckon it's time to replace Mings.  Regardless of the offside decision, it was yet another dithering on the ball fuck up when he should have just cleared it no messing, like Rio Ferdinand said.   England international my arse.

Harsh.
I thought he was excellent all match considering.
And when the ball came to him before the goal I thought take that down, and he did,  then from behind him hello Rhodri comes along and goodbye fairness

Exactly  the second Rhodri moved towards the ball he became active and therefore offside  it should have been flagged before Mings touched it. Additionally Mings was excellent all match along with the other defenders  totally unfair to scapegoat him yet again

To be fair some people talk absolute shite on here sometimes.
Suggesting binning Mings for that is pathetic.
Defensivly Villa were brilliant.

It's you that's talking shite mate - I'm not suggesting we bin Mings for tonight but for persistently and repeatedly doing the kind of thing he did tonight.  As Rio Ferdinand said first thing  a defender does is ensure he clears his lines regardless of whether he thinks someone is offside.  Mings is a serial offender and wearing his full kit on as many trains to Bournemouth as he likes aint gonna change that.  Scapegoating is singling someone out for unmerited blame.  Over several games this season and last, there are several example to show criticism of Mings is merited.
[/quote
Respectfully disagree.
So does the manager apparently.

What you disagree that Mings has made multiple errors that have cost us goals or almost cost us goals?  I can only imagine you've not been paying much attention then.

[Drummond]

What does the offside rule actually say? We need to know the facts.

In terms of their goal, the player becomes onside when an opponent (Mings obvs) deliberately plays the ball.

And the opponent 'receives the ball' ie if Mings had passed it to him, which he didn't. The offside player tackled him from an offside position, this interfering with play.

In any event the flag should have gone up when the ball was played as it as towards the offside player thus immediately making him interfere with play.

[brontebilly]

I really don’t think that rule was meant to be interpreted in that way. The confusion seems to be the interpretation that Rodri received the ball from Mings (which must means a pass) when he had it taken off him by the player dispossessing him from an offside position.

I think they’ve used the rule to dig themselves out of admitting another error.

Edit: as Clive has said above.

Yeah, I think that's exactly it. The rule has always been interpreted as a deliberate pass (which is a somewhat recent development I think?...not a fan of it either tbh). So a misplaced back pass or header. Not being dispossessed from behind.

What really galls is that joker Peter Walton coming on tv to scold Dean Smith effectively that players and coaches in the industry should know the rules, cheeky prick. Ferdinand nor Savage didn't have the intelligence to challenge this face saving interpretation.

On Mings, he still makes a big error. He decides to take the ball down with an attacking player close by. He can't know if all his backline have pushed up, for all he knows someone is playing the attacker onside. He takes an unnecessary risk, makes a poor touch and it costs us a goal. Its only on the replay really that it's clear we have been robbed. Mings continues to cost us goals by taking these unnecessary risks. It's a misplaced belief in his own ball playing ability that continues to do him.

[ktvillan]

MOTD also quoting the wrong part of the laws to say the decision was correct - Lineker saying it would have been offside if Rodri had challenged Mings for it  but he didn;t have to because that Mings' touch had taken it too far away from him. Utter bollocks form jug ears. Mings chested it down onto his own foot and Rodri took it off his foot.  Clearly a challenge and clearly gaining an advantage which is offside. There is no way on earth Rodri "received" the ball from Mings.  Pundits as thick as the refs. At least Keown said even if it's the law it aint right.

[The Edge]

MOTD predictably glossed over the offside goal. Nobody ever wants to get on the wrong side of the elite clubs do they? By elite I mean wealthiest.

[Drummond]

I don't think it's corruption, I just think they're shit.

[tomd2103]

MOTD also quoting the wrong part of the laws to say the decision was correct - Lineker saying it would have been offside if Rodri had challenged Mings for it  but he didn;t have to because that Mings' touch had taken it too far away from him. Utter bollocks form jug ears. Mings chested it down onto his own foot and Rodri took it off his foot.  Clearly a challenge and clearly gaining an advantage which is offside. There is no way on earth Rodri "received" the ball from Mings.  Pundits as thick as the refs. At least Keown said even if it's the law it aint right.

Just saw that as well.  Although Mings had a loose touch, Rodri had clearly tried to make up the ground to make a challenge and tackled Mings.  As soon as he began to get anywhere near Mings (MOTD showing he was 3.5 yards from Mings when he took his first touch) then he should have been flagged.  Clearly offside and a bollocks decision. 

Does open a can of worms about how a tactic like that could be used by attackers now. 

[stevo_st]

He was 3.5 yards from Mings when he chested the ball as measured by the BBC. Then went immediately to tackle him.
But because his starting position was about 25 yards off side when the ball was played it’s okay?!?

So the rule is that because he was so far offside, he then becomes onside?

[The Edge]

I really don’t think that rule was meant to be interpreted in that way. The confusion seems to be the interpretation that Rodri received the ball from Mings (which must means a pass) when he had it taken off him by the player dispossessing him from an offside position.

I think they’ve used the rule to dig themselves out of admitting another error.

Edit: as Clive has said above.

Yeah, I think that's exactly it. The rule has always been interpreted as a deliberate pass (which is a somewhat recent development I think?...not a fan of it either tbh). So a misplaced back pass or header. Not being dispossessed from behind.

What really galls is that joker Peter Walton coming on tv to scold Dean Smith effectively that players and coaches in the industry should know the rules, cheeky prick. Ferdinand nor Savage didn't have the intelligence to challenge this face saving interpretation.

On Mings, he still makes a big error. He decides to take the ball down with an attacking player close by. He can't know if all his backline have pushed up, for all he knows someone is playing the attacker onside. He takes an unnecessary risk, makes a poor touch and it costs us a goal. Its only on the replay really that it's clear we have been robbed. Mings continues to cost us goals by taking these unnecessary risks. It's a misplaced belief in his own ball playing ability that continues to do him.

I think people are being really harsh on Mings. He brought the ball down knowing the player was behind him but convinced he was no threat as he couldn't take the ball off him as that would make him offside and we would get a welcome free kick. He had no way of knowing that on this occasion those in charge would do things differently. In all my years watching football I have always thought exactly what Tyrone thought. So did everyone else except for the corrupt/inept officials.

[pooligan]

I was going to point out they won the League Cup from a corner that was quite clearly a goal kick except for the lino who got it badly wrong .I live in hope that one day we will be given a dubious decision against either Manchester club  but i won't hold my breath

[Skerra]

MOTD trying their hardest to say it should have been offside but, then quoting the wrong part of the offside law to justify it. Also saying the penalty for the handball was obvious, well not in my eyes. If the distance between the attacker and defender is so close, there is no way the defender can get his arm out of the way. In brief, both decisions incorrect, give the teams 1 point each and let’s move on.

[BC54 VFC]

I do not know all the British sayings, so is there a meaning to "getting juggling balls for Christmas" of which I am probably unaware?

Clowns use juggling balls.

I didn't get what he was saying until i just read this explanation.

I thought I was the only one!

That makes at least 3 of us! All I could think of was my Villa supporting cousin in NZ who's really good at juggling, but is certainly no clown!

[The Edge]

I don't think it's corruption, I just think they're shit.

When was the last time we had a dodgy decision go our way against city or United that gave us victory?  Surely if they were just shit everyone would get their fair share of dodgy pens etc.

[Mellin]

I'm still pissed off.

[Gareth]

Just posted same in Jon Moss thread but on the motd comms Guy Mowbray said VAR check complete whilst City players still celebrating so being generous 10 seconds, they’d have never had time to watch 2/3 replays to check the decision was correct.  I have no doubt they spent rest of that game looking up a rule to justify a poor decision by officials hence Walton’s post Stockley Park briefing u-turn